IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Bail Application 1st No.1987 of 2024 Harpal ......Applicant Vs. State of Uttarakhand …..Respondent Presence: Mr. Mani Kumar, learned counsel, for the applicant. Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned Brief Holder, for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J (Oral) The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of the applicant, Harpal, who is in judicial custody in connection with Case Crime No. 189 of 2024, registered under Section 109 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station Transit Camp, District Udham Singh Nagar. The applicant has been in custody since 28.07.2024. 2. It has been alleged that on 13.07.2024 at about 04:00 AM, the applicant assaulted his wife with an axe, causing injuries, in an attempt to kill her. The complainant, Ram Bharose, father of the victim, reported that the applicant frequently spoke about selling land and had already sold a portion of it, allegedly squandering the money on alcohol. On the day of the incident, when the applicant was preparing to leave for his village, the victim attempted to stop him, at which point he attacked her with an axe. The victim was saved by her minor children, and upon hearing the commotion, the complainant and other family members intervened, at which point the applicant fled the scene. The victim was immediately taken for medical treatment. An FIR was lodged on 18.07.2024, and upon investigation, the police recovered the axe used in the attack, along with a piece of the blood-stained mattress and the victim’s clothes, which were sent for forensic examination. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and that the 1 allegations are baseless. It has been contended that there are no independent witnesses to the alleged incident, and the state relies solely on the statements of the victim and her minor children, who are interested witnesses. 4. The learned counsel further argues that no weapon was recovered from the applicant’s possession, and its alleged recovery by the police is fabricated. It has been submitted that the FIR was lodged with a delay of five days, which creates doubts regarding the authenticity of the allegations. It is also contended that the complainant did not make any emergency calls to 100, 112, or 108, nor was any immediate report made to the police, despite the police station being merely 1 km away from the place of occurrence. 5. Furthermore, the applicant has also contended that this is merely a matrimonial dispute and that his implication in this case will completely sever any possibility of reconciliation with his family. The learned counsel asserts that the applicant has no prior criminal record, is falsely implicated, and should be granted bail. 6. The learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the bail application, contending that the allegations are serious and supported by medical and documentary evidence. It has been submitted that the victim sustained serious injuries from an axe attack, which has been confirmed in the medical report. The medical report stated that the victim was admitted with a severe head injury in an unconscious state. 7. The statements of the victim, her children, and other witnesses under Section 180 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita are consistent and corroborate the state’s case. The delay in lodging the FIR has been explained, as the complainant was occupied with the victim’s medical treatment. Furthermore, it has been argued that the axe, blood- stained mattress, and clothes of the victim have been seized and sent for forensic examination, strengthening the case against the applicant. The learned counsel further submits that the applicant fled from the scene after the incident, and if released on bail, he may threaten witnesses, tamper with evidence, or abscond to evade trial. 8. Upon hearing the submissions of both parties and perusal of the case records, the following aspects require consideration. Firstly, the victim’s medical report confirms injuries caused by a sharp-edged weapon, consistent with the state’s case. Secondly, the statements of the victim, her children, and other eyewitnesses are consistent and establish the sequence of events. Thirdly, the delay in lodging the FIR has been satisfactorily explained, as the complainant was attending to the victim’s medical needs. Fourthly, the applicant fled from the scene immediately after the attack, indicating his consciousness of guilt; and Fifthly, the recovery of the axe, blood-stained mattress, and clothes further supports the state’s case. Sixthly, the nature of the offense is grave, involving an assault with a deadly weapon on the applicant’s own spouse, making it a matter of concern for the safety of the victim and other witnesses. 9. As regards the applicant’s contention that this is a mere matrimonial dispute and that his implication will destroy all chances of reconciliation, this Court is of the view that the gravity of the offense cannot be diminished on this ground alone. The allegations are not of a minor domestic quarrel but involve a violent physical attack with a deadly weapon, resulting in serious injuries. 10. Given the seriousness of the offense and the risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, this Court finds no ground to grant bail at this stage. 11. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. (Ashish Naithani, J.) 26.03.2025 NR/